Given https://web.archive.org/web/19981206145505/https://www.techn... I think we can set the year to 1998. Pretty cool to get an Internet Archive link from that early.
Technorealism (1998)
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#22> 1. Technologies are not neutral. > (...) It is important for each of us to consider the biases of various technologies _and to seek out those that reflect our values and aspirations._ (emphasis added) This couldn't have aged better. I'd argue the issue is with finding anything that doesn't reflect your ML-inferred "values and aspirations", at least when lurking on the big platforms. > 4. Information is not knowledg…
> 4. Information is not knowledge. information is knowledge packaged for transport. converting information into knowledge is just called learning when humans do it. spreading information you don't understand is a service or a disservice depending on your intent.
Information isn't just knowledge packaged for transport. Knowledge is always subjective and a representation of some information as it holds meaning to a subject that interprets it.
Simple example, a gazillion string long DNA segment holds information, but without actual understanding and organization in some context (which importantly differs depending on who interprets it for what purpose) it holds no meaning.
Saying that this process of creating knowledge is "just" learning might be the most loaded "just" in history because that process is probably the most complicated, mysterious and least understood thing on earth.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#23I agree with everything except 5. I don't see why you can't replace the majority of teaching with automation. There's the aspect of learning social interaction, but that's among the kids themselves to figure out. The teacher doesn't have to be a literal person.
It's a pretty big claim to state that social interaction is 'for kids to figure out'. Social interaction, one of the most important facets of life, requires teaching and guidance as much as anything else. In fact proper socialization if anything requires more guidance by responsible adults than some technical subject.
Given that the manifesto takes a decidedly humanist stance on technology its not surprising. Education isn't just about 'learning stuff' its about having institutions that form citizens and instill some sense of virtue and values, and that can't be done in front of a screen, or replaced by technology. Very relevant today with the amount of covid-related lack of socialization outside of the home.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#24I agree with everything except 5. I don't see why you can't replace the majority of teaching with automation. There's the aspect of learning social interaction, but that's among the kids themselves to figure out. The teacher doesn't have to be a literal person.
Lets translate knowledge to "integrated affirmed information, which is recognisable as such". (In other words, a concept of resonance.) This can't be accomplished by a lone kid, since it's a social artefact.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#25> 6. Information wants to be protected. It's true that cyberspace and other recent developments are challenging our copyright laws and frameworks for protecting intellectual property. The answer, though, is not to scrap existing statutes and principles. Instead, we must update old laws and interpretations so that information receives roughly the same protection it did in the context of old media. The goal is the same…
A third option with both funding and no artficial scarcity:
https://cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-interne...
Everyone gets money to spend as patrons for people contributing to the commons.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a potential middle ground. - The present effective gate to the Internet is online service providers and mobile telephony / data providers. - A combination of UBI (sufficient to support authors, musicians, and other creators) and reputation / merit-based compensation (for works of more substantial effort, notably jouranlism, investigation, and research) should be able to support creatives. Note that this is mo…
I've largely come to the same conclusion. We want to support the creation of something that the physical universe treats as abundant and nearly infinite (information), but our economics are not currently aligned with possibilities that lead to win/win solutions for artists/consumers and the poor who often don't factor in to economic equations.
Nonsense. Never has everyone has more access, producing & receiving, whatever information they want - and nigh unto free. The issue isn’t cost, it’s inundation.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are saying they represent some sort of consensus. Of course anyone can say that too, but most people don’t talk that way.
They represent the concensus amongst themselves, as technorealists. As technorealists, we seek to expand the fertile middle ground between techno-utopianism and neo-Luddism. We are technology "critics" in the same way, and for the same reasons, that others are food critics, art critics, or literary critics. We can be passionately optimistic about some technologies, skeptical and disdainful of others. Still, our goal…
Consensus among themselves? LoL.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#28Agree with all.
> The Internet is revolutionary, but not Utopian.
Yes and: This isn't quite right.
In political science terms, I want an adjective stronger than "revolutionary", in the same direction. "Radical" has more punch, but wrong direction.
The Internet accelerated consolidation, not challenge it.
Back in 1998, I had no awareness of "preferential attachment" and "winner takes all". I currently believe that reducing transaction costs accelerates consolidation and therefore inequity.
Many technotopians thought the Internet would be the great liberator, toppling the gatekeepers and elites. Disintermediation! That certainly happened.
But what happened was gatekeepers killed off the old guard, feasted on their corpses. The larger trend was a massive consolidation, an unprecedented power grab, and ridiculous transfer of wealth. And previously inconceivable command of our collective attention. Masquerading as personalization, mass customization.
Also true is that more heterodoxy is sneaking into the zeitgeist (popular awareness) than ever before.
Paradox. How can both phenomenon be simultaneously true?
David Graeber in The Democracy Project might have the crucial insight. He's the "We are the %1" guy. He rejects revolution and advocates opportunistically sneaking in reforms in the margins, beyond the awareness and control of the power elites. He claims that authorities cannot control all uses of their mediums. That the very levers of power become the means of dissent.
The only metaphor I have for this paradoxical situation is the hands of power trying to grasp fistfuls of sand. The tighter the grip, the more sand leaks out. (Thanks Princess Leia!)
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#29> 1. Technologies are not neutral. > (...) It is important for each of us to consider the biases of various technologies _and to seek out those that reflect our values and aspirations._ (emphasis added) This couldn't have aged better. I'd argue the issue is with finding anything that doesn't reflect your ML-inferred "values and aspirations", at least when lurking on the big platforms. > 4. Information is not knowledg…
> 4. Information is not knowledge. information is knowledge packaged for transport. converting information into knowledge is just called learning when humans do it. spreading information you don't understand is a service or a disservice depending on your intent.
Man Point 4 is so prescient.
> That said, the proliferation of data is also a serious challenge, requiring new measures of human discipline and skepticism. We must not confuse the thrill of acquiring or distributing information quickly with the more daunting task of converting it into knowledge and wisdom.
Incredibly true, and since the web2.0 we have our nose into that problem on a daily basis.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4. Information is not knowledge. information is knowledge packaged for transport. converting information into knowledge is just called learning when humans do it. spreading information you don't understand is a service or a disservice depending on your intent.
Information isn't just knowledge packaged for transport. Knowledge is always subjective and a representation of some information as it holds meaning to a subject that interprets it. Simple example, a gazillion string long DNA segment holds information, but without actual understanding and organization in some context (which importantly differs depending on who interprets it for what purpose) it holds no meaning. Sayi…
> the most loaded "just" in history
nah I can do better. DNA is just data, you can say it "holds information" the way a footprint holds information but that's just an idiom.
knowing is just a perception. you can think you know something and be wrong.